whodb_platform_workspace_map

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: that it never returns secret values (important for a tool whose scope includes secrets) and that the workspace argument targets a single call without altering session defaults.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage and behavior. The long resource enumeration is slightly heavy but each item legitimately defines scope, and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does the work of summarizing the return contents (the resource categories) and discloses the secret-safety guarantee and default-targeting behavior. Defaults for omit_files/omit_lineage live in the schema. A reader has enough to call it correctly, though return shape and size are only loosely characterized.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the workspace {host, org, project} targeting semantics, but that meaning is already carried by the workspace schema description; the fields, omit_files and omit_lineage parameters get no additional explanation beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('selected-project map') and enumerates exactly what the map spans (sources, secrets, AI providers, datasets, ontologies, transforms, functions, root files, storage, lineage). This scope enumeration distinguishes it clearly from sibling inventory tools like whodb_platform_workspace_summary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly gives the trigger ('when the agent needs a full resource inventory') and routes to an alternative by ordering it after whodb_platform_workspace_summary. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or how it differs substantively from summary, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not/alternatives triad.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.